Short response:
I think we're moving toward using rdf:... rather than rdfs:..., and I'm
happy with that.
Longer...
At 02:43 PM 11/9/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>>Oh dear, I haven't being paying attention properly. Apologies. Something
>>was niggling me about this, but I now think I see what it was:
>>
>>The datatyping extension is both syntactic and semantic. As a syntactic
>>extension, it naturally belongs with the core language
>
>It needs to use rdfs:Datatype to signal a recognized dtype, that's
>essentially syntactic.
Yup.
>>. But as a semantic extension, it fits more comfortably (IMO) with the
>>schema material. Hmmm... I don't know what to suggest as a solution.
>
>Wait.... .solution? What exactly is the problem here?
The "problem" I perceive, partly in response to Dave's comment, is that
datatyping is core language syntax, but that the corresponding semantics of
datatype-entailment don't really sit there. I don't think there's any
fundamental technical problem, but a challenge of presentation that the
relevant material is presented cleanly (e.g. avoiding dependencies like,
for example, the RDF core specification on RDF schema).
>> (DanC's approach, which we turned down, starts to look more attractive.)
>>
>>That's not helpful... thinks... the only thing I can think of that seems
>>reasonably coherent is to bring the datatype URI into the core (rdf:),
>>even if it is "adding a new term that has a meaning". It would not be
>>the first such term in the core language; e.g. we already rdf:type,
>>which has some defined semantics in an RDF-interpretation.
>
>I don't follow you here. Did you mean to say in an RDFS-interpretation?
>Because that wouldnt really be accurate.
No, I meant RDF-interpretation. I was responding to Dave's comment:
[[
Since it is adding a new term that has a meaning (will get some
description in an RDF schema document) rather than something for
building the RDF/XML syntax, I thought our policy was to add stick
them in RDFS namespace.
]]
and suggesting that adding additional semantic rules in the RDF namespace
would not be overturning some established policy.
>>Is there any reason why a datatyped-interpretation has also to be an
>>RDFS-interpretation?
>
>No deep reason. Its tricky to say much without mentioning rdfs:Dataype and
>rdfs:Literal , is all.
Yes... the challenge of presentation?
>I think we discussed having rdf:Datatype and rejected it for some W3C
>procedural reason (??).
I don't know now.
I think we're moving toward having rdf:Datatype rather than rdfs:..., and
I'm happy with that.
(For now, at least. Having read through the new stuff on datatyping, and
thinking of Aaron's comments about complexity, I do find DanC's approach to
datatyping more appealing (sans the lexical form constraint), by virtue of
avoiding a whole slew of new mechanism. But, this isn't the time to
question group consensus and I'm not about to rock the boat here. But I
think it's something we might wish to contemplate if there's community
concern about datatyping in the last call period.)
#g
--
>>At 05:53 PM 11/8/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
>>
>>> >>>Dan Connolly said:
>>>>
>>>> I see
>>>> rdfs:XMLLiteral
>>>>
>>>> in
>>>> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF%20Model%20Theory_Oct_draft.html
>>>>
>>>> That should be rdf:XMLLiteral, right Dave?
>>>
>>>No, we agreed rdfs:XMLLiteral
>>>
>>>I noted this danger earlier this week.
>>>
>>>> eek... it's there in the syntax editor's draft
>>>> too:
>>>>
>>>> If literal-language is the empty string then the value is the
>>>> concatenation of """ (1 double quote), the value of the literal-value
>>>> accessor and ""^^<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#XMLLiteral>" (1
>>>> double quote).
>>>>
>>>> -- http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/
>>>
>>>It is in the soon to published WD too.
>>>
>>>> Let's please be careful... there is no
>>>> dependency on RDFS from RDF.
>>>
>>>Since it is adding a new term that has a meaning (will get some
>>>description in an RDF schema document) rather than something for
>>>building the RDF/XML syntax, I thought our policy was to add stick
>>>them in RDFS namespace.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I thought we could get away with a combined
>>>> model theory spec, at least for a while.
>>>> But I think that time is ending.
>>>>
>>>> And I'm starting to wonder about the primer...
>>>> ah; the primer is cited non-normatively
>>>> from that syntax draft; as long as we
>>>> do that, it can have both RDF and RDFS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>-------------------
>>Graham Klyne
>><GK@NineByNine.org>
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC (850)434 8903 home
>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell
>phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>